QUINCY – A day after a divided U.S. Supreme Court extended religious-freedom protections to certain for-profit corporations exempting them from providing birth-control services that are required under the 2010 Affordable Care Act – it’s unclear what effect the decision will have in Massachusetts.

But one Boston law school professor says the ruling could have no little or no effect here.

Renée Landers, a professor of health law at Suffolk University, The Supreme Court’s decision may not apply to Massachusetts because it was based on a federal statute known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was meant to keep the federal government from placing burdens on religious freedom.

She pointed to a 2002 Massachusetts law that requires employers who provide health insurance to include coverage for contraceptive care. The law also allows exemptions for “qualified church-controlled organizations” but not for hospitals, universities or for-profit businesses.

Landers said it’s also not clear what kind of business would come forward to seek exemptions under the court’s decision. “I think this Supreme Court, the majority, has opened up a Pandora’s Box,” she said. “We have no idea how many corporations structured as closely held corporations will come out of the woodwork.”

Around Boston and the South Shore, the decision was either hailed or bemoaned, mostly along expected lines of pro-choice and anti-abortion viewpoints.

“I am concerned about religious exemptions for for-profit corporations. I am hopeful the (Obama) administration will figure out a work-around,” said Hull resident Amy Whitcomb Slemmer, who heads Health Care for All, a Boston-based organization that pushes for affordable healthcare in the state.

Slemmer predicted the state’s strong track record of providing contraceptive care will continue. “I wouldn’t anticipate a rush to limit benefits based on today’s ruling.”

The Supreme Court’s groundbreaking 5-4 decision concluded that closely held corporations may claim religious rights similar to those enjoyed by individuals. The decision expands exemptions from the so-called contraceptive mandate imposed by the Affordable Care Act. It doesn’t affect other insurance provisions in the law, such as blood transfusions or vaccinations.

“Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them,” Justice Samuel Alito said, writing for the majority.

Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is also running for governor, criticized Monday’s court ruling and said she would fight to retain contraceptive health coverage for women. “Today’s ruling undercuts important protections for women seeking access to affordable contraceptive services,” she said.

In her dissent, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the court’s decision one of “startling breadth” and stressed the implications of the ruling on women. “It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that (the health care law) would otherwise secure,” Ginsburg wrote.

Page 2 of 2 - Marty Walz, President and CEO of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, agreed, calling the ruling both disappointing and troubling.

“Today, the Supreme Court gave bosses the right to discriminate against women and deny their employees access to birth control coverage,” she said. “This ruling does not strike down the Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit. Today, more than 500,000 Massachusetts women are eligible for birth control with no co-pay thanks to this benefit, and many of them will not be affected by this ruling. But for those who are affected, this ruling will have real consequences.”

Anti-abortion advocates were quick to herald it as a victory.

Anne Fox, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, isn’t sure how the ruling will play out in this state but she was happy with the ruling, pointing out that has found it “extremely upsetting” that her organization is required to pay for health insurance for its employees that includes contraceptive benefits.

Robert W. Joyce, a Newton attorney and president of the Pro-Life Legal Defense Fund, expected some business owners to welcome the decision. “I have spoken to business owners who expressed very significant concern about being required to participate in programs which would involve them in the termination of innocent, young, defenseless human life,” he said.